2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106615
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A mixture of 15 phthalates and pesticides below individual chemical no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) produces reproductive tract malformations in the male rat

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 81 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, phthalates such as DEHP are also widely found in foods, particularly meat and dairy products, poly­(vinyl chloride) medical devices and equipment, and personal care products, exposure sources that may fall outside of TSCA’s direct regulatory authorities but contribute to background phthalate human exposures and thus are relevant to the question of whether exposure sources under TSCA’s regulatory jurisdiction present “unreasonable risk”. Evidence supports biological additivity of phthalate exposures affecting common biological targets. Furthermore, studies have documented differences in exposure levels by race, with higher exposure levels in African Americans than whites; similar results have been reported elsewhere. , Collectively, therefore, regulatory decisions based on risk estimates of individual phthalate exposure may under protect public health. While EPA initially did not signal that it would incorporate cumulative risk assessment (CRA) as part of its current risk evaluation for the seven phthalates, the agency recently announced that it is reconsidering if CRA for phthalates would be appropriate.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…However, phthalates such as DEHP are also widely found in foods, particularly meat and dairy products, poly­(vinyl chloride) medical devices and equipment, and personal care products, exposure sources that may fall outside of TSCA’s direct regulatory authorities but contribute to background phthalate human exposures and thus are relevant to the question of whether exposure sources under TSCA’s regulatory jurisdiction present “unreasonable risk”. Evidence supports biological additivity of phthalate exposures affecting common biological targets. Furthermore, studies have documented differences in exposure levels by race, with higher exposure levels in African Americans than whites; similar results have been reported elsewhere. , Collectively, therefore, regulatory decisions based on risk estimates of individual phthalate exposure may under protect public health. While EPA initially did not signal that it would incorporate cumulative risk assessment (CRA) as part of its current risk evaluation for the seven phthalates, the agency recently announced that it is reconsidering if CRA for phthalates would be appropriate.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…If combinatorial EDCs confer an enhanced effect on metabolic health, risk assessment based on no adverse effect levels for single EDC exposures could overestimate "safe" exposure levels. Multiple studies focused on reproductive toxicity support this possibility, as the reproductive toxicity of EDC mixtures indicates dose-additive effects of low dose mixtures [35][36][37][38], even when single EDC exposures show no phenotype [39][40][41]. This study hypothesizes that well-studied EDCs known to target metabolic function through different direct molecular targets will produce enhanced metabolic toxicity on a single physiological function, such as glucose metabolism [35,42].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 75%
“… 50 Similarly, a more recent study showed cumulative effects in male rats of mixtures of environmental contaminants with relevance for male sexual development at dilutions of their NOAELs as low as a factor of 15, on marks related to this end point. 51 In this context, it should be kept in mind that although an effect at the NOAEL is commonly assumed to be zero, there may very well be an effect at the NOAEL that was, however, too small to be detected owing to the lack of observational or statistical power for that small effect size (e.g., Crepet at al. 52 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%